Binance – Bitcoin Slots.us

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot
Reposting after was mistakenly removed by mods (since resolved - Thanks)
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/e8s7dj3ivpq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=5d0463462702637118c7527ebf96e91f4a80b290

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Cosmos on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Polkadot on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Avalanche on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/2o0brllyvpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f62bb696ecaafcf6184da005d5fe0129d504518

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/ckfamee0wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4355f145d821fabf7785e238dbc96a5f5ce2846

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/kzup5x42wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=320eb4c25dc4fc0f443a7a2f7ff09567871648cd

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/pbgyk3o3wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=61c18e12932a250f5633c40633810d0f64520575

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/4zpi6s85wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e91ade1a86a5d50f4976f3b23a46e9287b08e373

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/li5jy6u6wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a95f1f88e5efbcf9e23c789ae0f002c8eb73fc

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/ai0bkbq8wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e85ee6a3c4670f388ccea00b0c906c3fb51e415

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/mels7myawpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=df9782e2c0a4c26b61e462746256bdf83b1fb906
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/dbb99egcwpq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=aeb03127dc0dc74d0507328e899db1c7d7fc2879
For more information see the articles below (each with additional sources at the bottom of their articles)
Avalanche, a Revolutionary Consensus Engine and Platform. A Game Changer for Blockchain
Avalanche Consensus, The Biggest Breakthrough since Nakamoto
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two
Cosmos Hub ATOM Token and the commonly misunderstood staking tokens — Part Three
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One — Overview and Benefits
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two — How Consensus Works
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Three — Limitations and Issues
submitted by xSeq22x to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

[ CryptoCurrency ] Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

[ 🔴 DELETED 🔴 ] Topic originally posted in CryptoCurrency by xSeq22x [link]
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/lg16iwk2dhq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=6c899ee69800dd6c5e2900d8fa83de7a43c57086

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
https://youtu.be/Eb8xkDi_PUg

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
https://youtu.be/_-k0xkooSlA

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
https://youtu.be/mWBzFmzzBAg

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/ththwq5qdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=92f75152c90d984911db88ed174ebf3a147ca70d

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/lv2h7g9sdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=56eada6e8c72dbb4406d7c5377ad15608bcc730e

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/qe8e5ltudhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=18a2866104590f81a818690337f9121161dda890

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/0mnvpnzwdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8927ff2821415817265be75c59261f83851a2791

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/rsctxi6zdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=ff762dea3cfc2aaaa3c8fc7b1070d5be6759aac2

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/7phaylb1ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=d86d2ec49de456403edbaf27009ed0e25609fbff

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/l775gue3ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=b7c4b5802ceb1a9307bd2a8d65f393d1bcb0d7c6

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/zb72eto5ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=0ee102a2881d763296ad9ffba20667f531d2fd7a
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/fwi3clz7ehq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=c91c1645a4c67defd5fc3aaec84f4a765e1c50b6
xSeq22x your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

How gambling can be profitable

How gambling can be profitable
I have to admit, I like to play. To poker, slots and other casino games. What I don't like so much is losing.
Another thing that I really like is cryptocurrencies and everything related to investing in them. So when I met Betfury and studied their investment system it was love at first sight.
I remember again that for those haters and disbelievers, this is not your site, so stop reading here. However, for those who want to generate income while doing something they like, here is the info.
Betfury has a staking system, something very fashionable now with DeFi, in which you can generate income by farming the company's token (BFG). Staking is still a deposit like in any traditional bank but with unthinkable returns in the finances that we know so far.
The system is simple. For every play you make at the casino, Betfury gives you an amount of BFG tokens or coins. These coins are the closest thing to having casino shares, since each day they distribute a part of the profits to all the users who maintain BFG in their account. And they pay daily, without fail and in Bitcoin.
To give you an idea, for every 100,000 BFG tokens you get about $ 240 per month, one million $ 2400 and so on ...
For now the only way to get these tokens is by playing and for the time I have been with this I have calculated that each 10,000 tokens cost about $ 70- $ 80, depending on the game.
With these accounts, someone who reaches one million tokens will have invested about $ 8000 that they will recover in less than 4 months. And from there ... the sky is the limit!
In addition, very soon the token will be able to be traded on exchanges such as Binance or Uniswap and there may be those who have entered on time will see their investment more than rewarded.
I currently have about 140,000 BFG and they continue to grow. We will see how far this interesting project of casino games and investment system goes.
And you do you think?
My current profit in Betfury.
If you want to start to earn some money click here.
submitted by PassiveIncome4Ever to u/PassiveIncome4Ever [link] [comments]

UYT Main-Net pre-launching AMA successfully completed with a blast

7 pm, 29th September 2020 Beijing time the UYT Main-Net pre-launching AMA successfully completed with a blast!
Here is a full record of the AMA:
Host: Hello everyone, it’s a great honor to host the first AMA of UYT network in China. Today, we have invited the person in charge of UYT Dao.
Let’s ask Mr. Woo to introduce himself Woo: Hello, I’m Ben. I’ve met you in the previous global live broadcast. I’m the director of UYT Dao and the founder of IGNISVC. At present, I’m the CEO of the TKNT foundation and have been engaged in the blockchain industry.
Q1. At present, different types of blockchains have emerged, but cross-chain interaction is still suffering a lot. In your opinion, what is the necessity and significance of cross-chain?
Answer: The full name of UYT is to unite all your tokens, which is to integrate all public chains and increase the liquidity of the whole industry. Our purpose is not to create another public chain, but to become a platform for the exchange of value, technology, and resources of all public chains. What we need to solve is that each individual chain can circulate with each other.
The full name of UYT is to unite all your tokens, which is to integrate all public chains and increase the liquidity of the whole industry. Our purpose is not to create another public chain, but to become a platform for the exchange of value, technology, and resources of all public chains. What we need to solve is that each individual chain can circulate with each other.
Q2. The founder of Ethereum, V Shen, once wrote a cross-chain operation report for bank alliance chain R3, which mentioned three cross-chain methods. Which one does UYT belong to? Can you briefly introduce the cross-chain solution of UYT?
Answer: In Vitalik’s cross-chain report, there are three main cross-chain methods. The first is that both parties do not know that they are crossing the chain, or that they cannot “read” each other, such as the centralized exchange. The second way is that one of the links can read other chains, such as side-chain / relay chain. That is, a can read B, and B cannot read a; The third is that both a and B can read each other’s, which can achieve the value and information exchange between a, B, and the platform. UYT belongs to the third kind.
Our new official website will be online soon. Here are a few simple points: first of all, the architecture of UYT includes relay chain, parachain, parathreads, and bridges. In terms of ductility, it has exceeded almost all the public chains currently online.
In the UYT network, there are four kinds of consensus participants, namely collector, fisherman, nominator, and validator. The characteristics of this model are: first, all people can participate without loss. Secondly, as long as anyone makes more contribution to the ecology, he will get more rewards, otherwise, he will receive corresponding punishment.
The underlying layer of UYT is the substrate, which uses the rust programming language. Rust is committed to becoming a programming language that can solve the problems of high concurrency and high-security systems elegantly. This is also a great advantage that we are different from other blockchain projects in technology.
Q3. What are the roles in the UYT network? What are their respective functions?
Answer: After the main network of UYT is online, there will be four roles: collector, fisherman, nominator, and validator, which is totally different from the current system of the test network.
The collector, in short, is responsible for collecting all kinds of information in the parallel chain and packaging the information to the verifier.
Fishermen, to put it bluntly, is fishing law enforcement, which specifically checks out malicious acts and gets rewards after being checked out.
The nominator, in fact, is a group of rights and interests. The verifier is its representative, and they entrust the deposit to the verifier.
Verifier, package new blocks in the network. It must mortgage enough deposits and run a relay chain client on a highly available and high bandwidth machine. It can be understood as a mining pool. It can also be understood as the node in the current UYT DAPP.
Q4. What is the mining mechanism of the UYT network?
The only way to obtain UYT after its issuance is to participate in mining activities. In the initial stage, the daily constant output times of UYT are set to 1440000, and the cycle of bitcoin is halved. Mining rewards can be obtained in the following five ways:
1) Asset pledge mapping mining 2) Become the intermediate chain node of uyt network 3) Recommendation and reward mechanism 4) Voting reward 5) UYT network Dao will take out 10% of gas revenue from block packaging for community construction and reward of excellent community personnel
Q5. The rise and fall of the blockchain are very fast. In order to give investors confidence, is there a detailed development plan, implementation steps, and application direction of UYT network in the next few months?
Answer: UYT Network test network has been running stably for a year. After the main network is launched, all mechanisms will undergo major changes.
The relationship between the UYT test network and the main network can be understood as the relationship between KSM (dot test network) and dot the main network, and the feasibility of the technology can be reflected more quickly by the UYT test network because of its faster timeliness and all future technology updates Some will move to the main network after the stable operation of the test network.
In order to give users a better experience and give more rewards to excellent nodes, all Dao organizers are working hard for it.
The development team has completed the cross-chain of bitcoin and some high-quality Ethereum based tokens in the early stage, and now the code has all been open source. For other mainstream currencies, community members can apply for funds to develop. In order to develop the ecology and make a better technical reserve, we will set up a special ecological development fund when the main network goes online. The transfer bridge is our key funding direction. The maximum application amount of a team is as high as 100000 US dollars. In addition, if other public chains want to connect to UYT, they will get technical support. In order to encourage developers to participate in ecological construction, Dao also launched a series of grants to support development. Developers can directly pull the better applications on Eth and EOS directly, or develop new products according to their own advantages. These directions are now the focus of funding.
Due to the early online testing time of uyt network, it is based on the earlier version of substrate1.0. The on-chain governance mode can only be realized after the upgrade of 2.0 is completed.
At present, the upgrading work is going on steadily, and the on-chain governance will be implemented in the main network with the launch of the uyt main network.
As a heterogeneous cross-chain solution with high scalability and scalability, UYT network can perfectly bridge the parallel encryption system and its encryption assets in theory, and its wide applicability in the future can be expected. Therefore, we do not limit the areas where UYT network will play its advantages and roles. But in the general direction, there will be mainly DEFI and DEX ecological plates. From the industry, it can cover a wide range of fields, not only finance but also games, entertainment, shopping malls, real estate, and so on.
Q6、How can UYT help DEFI?
Answer: UYT network can not only link different public chains but also make parallel chains independent and interlinked. Just like the ACALA project some time ago, it has successfully obtained Pantera capital’s $7 million saft agreement. Although the concept of DEFI is very popular now, all DEFI products are still in the ecology of each public chain, and the cross-chain DEFI ecology has not been developed. UYT is to achieve cross-chain communication, value exchange, and develop truly decentralized financial services and products. For example, cross-chain decentralized flash cash, cross-chain asset support, cross-chain decentralized lending, Oracle machine, and other products. At present, our technical team is also speeding up the construction of infrastructure suitable for the landing of more DEFI products and services and is committed to creating a real cross-chain DEFI ecology, which is only a small step of UYT’s future plan.
Q7、TKNT should be one of the hottest projects in the UYT ecosystem recently. Please give us a brief introduction to the TKNT project and the value of TKNT in the UYT ecosystem. Why can TKNT increase 400 times in 7 days? And what is the cooperative relationship between UTC and TKNT?
Answer: I will answer each project from the technical and resource aspects. Let’s first introduce UTC. UTC is the token of Copernican network and the first project of UYT game entertainment ecology. In the future, it will be responsible for linking. Due to the high-quality public chain in the entertainment industry, because of the limited slots of UYT, each field will seek a high-quality partner and help the partner become the secondary relay chain of UYT. After the main network of UYT goes online, many chains will want to access UYT Greater value circulation, due to the limited external slots of UYT, the cost is also very high. At this time, you can choose to connect to UTC first, and then connect UTC to UYT. With more and more links with UYT, it will gradually evolve into a secondary relay chain of UYT network. UTC’s resources, online and offline, offline payment and offline entity applications, also have a very large community base.
The ecological partners have very good operation experience in the game industry. They will use blockchain technology to change the whole game entertainment industry to make it more transparent and fair. At the same time, there are enough entity consumption scenarios. This is also UYT Because of the reason why the network chose to cooperate with it, the UTC project has been supported by the UYT ecological fund. The support fund includes that after the main network is launched, it will also be the first ecological cooperation project supported by UYT. Because of the online time of the main network of UYT, UTC can’t directly form a chain at present and will give priority to issuing on Ethereum. TKNT is a new concept project TKN.com TKN is the largest online centralized guessing game platform in the world at present. TKNT mixes bet mining and DEFI, so it can carry out fixed mining through platform games, build a system that can realize game participation and in application payment in all Dapps based on ERC20, and combine with various financial services.
The reason why TKNT has created a myth of 400 times in 7 days is that the TkN platform has a buyback plan. As we all know, the online quiz game entertainment platform has an amazing profit. Every quarter, the profit will be used to buyback. The strong profit support has led to the huge increase of token. In the future, all users can use UTC to participate in TkN games. Therefore, the main network of UYT is that Line is also of great significance to TKNT. With the maturity of UYT ecology and technology, TKNT can have a more powerful performance. If TKNT wants to link more public chains, it needs to access UYT network, and realize a bigger vision with cross-chain interaction of UYT. After TKNT was launched on the exchange, the highest price has risen to $14, and now it has dropped to about $2.50. You will see that it will once again set a record high and create greater miracles. You will also see that $3 will be the best buying point for TKNT, because there will be several major moves in TKNT, and the global MLM plan will be launched on October 7 in Korea, China, and other countries There will be many marketing teams in Europe to promote TKNT, including DAPP.com As a shareholder of TkN, TKNT will also make every effort to promote TKNT. Secondly, TKNT will be launched next month on the largest digital currency exchange in South Korea, and Chinese users will see the shadow of TKNT on Binance in November. Of course, the decentralized trading platform of UYT will also be launched in the future.
Q8. What is the significance of the launch of UYT’s main network for the industry and ecology?
Answer: UYT is one of the few cross-chain platform projects in the industry at present.
There are many public chains and coin issuing projects. Why? Because of less work, more money. However, there are very high technical and capital requirements for cross-chain and platform. This barrier is very high, so almost no project side is willing to do this. But once this is done, it will be of great significance to the whole industry of digital currency and blockchain.
Because it will subvert the current situation of the whole currency circle and chain circle acting on their own, and the painting land is king. Let each independent ecosystem achieve a truly decentralized and trust-free cooperative relationship. This huge change will promote the whole industry to develop into a healthy and virtuous circle macro ecosystem.
Q9. The slogan of many project supporters is that UYT should surpass Ethereum. What is the difference in technology between UYT network and Ethereum?
Answer: Thank you so much for supporting UYT. In fact, the correct understanding is that UYT is the next era of Ethereum. First of all, UYT has a different vision from Ethereum.
Before the emergence of UYT, Ethereum, and EOS, no matter how well they developed, belonged to the era of a single chain. The popular metaphor is a LAN. However, UYT can realize the interoperability of each chain and bring the blockchain into the Internet era. Secondly, UYT is far superior to Ethereum in technology. It mainly includes three aspects: shared security, heterogeneous cross-chain, and no fork upgrade.
In the case that Ethereum 2.0 has not been implemented, UYT is the most friendly bottom layer for the DFI projects and other Dapps on Ethereum. Now, the hair chain architecture substrate of UYT is compatible with Ethereum smart contract language solidity, so eth developers can easily migrate their smart contracts to UYT.
Up to now, there is no good solution to the congestion problem of Ethereum, while UYT network not only solves the network congestion problem. What’s more, UYT can easily realize one-click online upgrade, instead of having to redeploy a set of contracts on Ethereum for each version upgraded and then require users to follow them to migrate the original assets from the old contract to the new contract. Developers can quickly and flexibly iterate their own protocols to change their application solutions according to the situation, so as to serve more users and solve more problems. At the same time, they can also repair the loopholes in the contract very quickly. In the case of hacker attacks, they can also solve the hacker stealing money and a series of other problems through parallel chain management. We can find that for Ethereum, UYT not only solves the congestion problem we see in front of us but also provides the most important infrastructure for the future applications such as DFI on Ethereum to truly mature into an open financial application that can serve all people. It also opens the Web 3.0 era of the blockchain industry. In terms of market value, Ethereum currently has a strong ecological construction, with a market value of US $40 billion. UYT will also focus on the development of this aspect after the main network goes online. No matter in terms of market value or ecological construction, I have enough confidence in UYT, after all, we are fully prepared.
Q10. What is the progress of the ecological construction of UYT? What opportunities do current ecological partners see in UYT or what changes may be brought about by UYT ecology?
Answer: After the main network of UYT goes online, there will be a series of ecological construction actions, and more attention will be paid to establishing contact with traditional partners. Cross-chain decentralized flash cash, cross-chain asset support, cross-chain decentralized lending, Oracle machine, and other products will also be the key cooperation direction of UYT.
UYT will give priority to the game and entertainment industry because this industry is most easily subverted by blockchain. As the ecological construction of UYT gets bigger and bigger, the future slots will become more and more expensive. The earlier you join UYT ecology, you will get more support from the ecological fund because the ecological fund is also limited. From the perspective of token value-added, all the project parties will cooperate with the project side in the future, and the project side needs to pledge a certain number of UYT to bid for slots, except for ecological rewards, others need to be purchased from market transactions.
The difference between the pledge here and the pledge we understand is that the UYT of the ecological partner participating in the auction pledge cannot enjoy the computing power for mining.
UYT main network has several opportunities for Eco partners to look forward to, the first point is bitcoin, bitcoin will be later than other assets late, but eventually, all the bubble and value will return to BTC, after the wave of DeFi bubble elimination, the focus will be very much in the bitcoin. UYT ecology can provide a more mature bottom layer for defi. In addition, now Ethereum’s DEFI is that of Ethereum and ERC 20 tokens, and the outbreak point of bitcoin has not yet arrived. Therefore, the DEFI of UYT ecology may be the next opportunity, which is a good opportunity for everyone.
The second opportunity is that after the main network goes online, the future UYT ecological projects will compete to bid for slots. In fact, the original intention of UYT is to realize the interconnection of all chains. The chain outside the UYT ecology also needs to communicate. The third is cross-fi. The BIFI is hatched on Ethereum, and the def on UYT can realize multi-chain operation. For example, TkN games or future UTC game platform users can call bitcoin on the UYT chain. This form only belongs to the decentralized finance in the cross-chain era of UYT, which can be called cross-fi.
Q11. Which exchanges will UYT go online next? What is the online strategy like?
Answer: As the founder of ignisvc and as UYT As the head of the Dao organization, we have always had good cooperative relations with major exchanges all over the world. TKNT will appear in several exchanges one after another. Hitbtc exchange in the United Kingdom, Upbit and Bithumb Exchange in South Korea, Bitfinex exchange in the United States, Binance exchange in China, BKEX exchange, and Kucoin exchange in China are all our partners, and they have been paying close attention to UYT Development, UYT is the public chain with the largest user base and the highest community participation in the cross-chain field, so the future value is immeasurable. If we have to go to the exchange, then we will choose one of the above exchanges to launch. But the vision of UYT is to create a fairer, safer, and transparent circulation in the field of digital currency, and users can master all the assets by themselves, Therefore, in the beginning, there is a simple DEX on the UYT wallet, which is a simple matchmaking transaction and is also an on-chain transaction. After the completion of the UYT DEX, more transactions may occur in the UYT DEX.
However, after the main network of UYT is online, centralized exchanges can directly access the block data synchronization of UYT, and it is not ruled out that some exchanges will directly go online for UYT trading. Such exchanges will not enjoy the support of the ecological support fund of UYT. The network project is a community-led project. Each cooperation plan of the exchange will be carried out in the way shared by the community in the future. Dao organization can only implement it according to the voting results.
Q12. What are the plans for the promotion of ecological development and market by the launch of UYT main network?
Answer: The launch of the main network will be completed around October 15.
On the offline side, due to the epidemic situation, we will jointly organize corresponding market activities with nodes in different countries. At present, there are three large-scale offline meetups that have been identified. We will also start a global roadshow when the epidemic is over.
On the online side, we have opened online Wechat, Kakao, Twitter, Reddit, and telegram communities. We will carry out AMA activities in various countries and promote them all over the world in various ways. Of course, we will launch MLM plans and cooperate with more marketing teams.
submitted by tkntfoundation to u/tkntfoundation [link] [comments]

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (Nov. 2019 Update)

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (Nov. 2019 Update)
EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptocurrencies for Two Years (2018 & 2019) - Month Twenty-Three - Down 85%
Full blog post with all the tables
**NOTE 1** - I'm on the fence whether or not to repeat the experiment yet again in 2020 with the new Top Ten. The problem is that there's been almost no movement: unless something drastic changes in December, it will be the exact same group of cryptos as the 2019 Top Ten minus Tron and plus Binance Coin. Tracking almost the same group, in the same way, for similar prices isn't very inspiring. I have some other ideas, but very open to suggestions: if you have any good ideas, please share them in the comments below. **END NOTE 1**
**NOTE 2** - I usually like to release the two posts a day apart, but I'll be spacing out the Top Ten 2018 and the Top Ten 2019 reports a bit more as readers have mentioned they've been removed by the mods (no offence taken, mods - the content is similar, I assume the posts are being removed because they're seen as identical. **END NOTE 2**
tl;dr - After a positive bounce in October, the cryptoverse is back to the summer's downward trajectory. Every crypto was down in November. Cardano performed the best (or least horribly), Dash lost the month for the first time since the experiment began nearly two years ago. Overall, Bitcoin is still well ahead. 60% of the 2018 Top Ten cryptos has lost at least 90% of their January 2018 value. NEM continues to be the absolute worst performer.

The Experiment:

Instead of hypothetically tracking cryptos, I made an actual $1000 investment, $100 in each of the Top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap as of the 1st of January 2018. Think of it as a lazy man's Index Fund (no weighting or rebalancing), less technical, more fun (for me at least), and hopefully still a proxy for the market as a whole - or at the very least an interesting snapshot of the 2018/2019 crypto space. I’m trying to keep it simple and accessible for beginners and those looking to get into crypto but maybe not quite ready to jump in yet. I try not to take sides or analyze, but rather report and document in a detached manner letting the numbers speak for themselves.
I have also started a parallel project: on January 1st, 2019, I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) into the new Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st 2019. Spoiler alert: the 2019 Experiment makes for much happier reading.

The Rules:

Buy $100 of each the Top 10 cryptocurrencies on January 1st, 2018. Run the experiment two years. Hold only. No selling. No trading. Report monthly. Compare loosely to the 2019 Top Ten Experiment.

Month Twenty-Three - Down 85%

After a strong October bounce, the 2018 Top Ten portfolio reverted to downward trajectory of the summer months. While all cryptos in the experiment were either in the green or flat last month, the opposite was true in November as each crypto ended the month solidly in the red.

Ranking and November Winners and Losers

There was no upward movement in November: every crypto either held onto its position or slid. After slipping three slots last month, Dash fell two more places in November and has now fallen to #22 and out of the Top Twenty for the first time since the beginning of the experiment. For the second straight month, IOTA dropped two places and now is in danger of joining Dash outside the Top Twenty. Bitcoin Cash and NEM also fell one position each, ending November at #5 and #28 respectively.
November Winners - Although it lost -11% in November, Cardano handily outperformed its peers. NEM finished in second, "only" down -15% on the month.
November Losers - Dash had a rough month, losing -28% of its value and dropping out of the Top Twenty. November also marks the first time since January 2018 that Dash ended a month at the bottom. Bitcoin Cash followed close behind Dash, finishing -27% in November.
For those keeping score, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and losses during the first 23 months of this experiment. Most monthly wins (5): Bitcoin. Most monthly losses (5): Stellar. All cryptos have at least one monthly win. Up until last month, the only two coins never to lose a month were Bitcoin and Dash. Thanks to a Dash's dismal November, Bitcoin now stands alone as the only crypto that hasn't lost a month.

Overall update – Bitcoin still well ahead. 60% of the 2018 Top Ten cryptos have lost at least -90% of their January 2018 value, NEM still absolute worst performer.

Although down -45% since January 2018, Bitcoin is still miles ahead of the rest of the field. Litecoin and Ethereum are virtually tied for second place, down -79%.
NEM has performed the absolute worst (currently down -96%) but has plenty of company at the bottom: six out of the ten cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten are down at least 90%: NEM, Cardano, Dash, IOTA, Ripple, and Bitcoin Cash. My initial $100 investment in NEM is worth just $3.83.
Additionally, 40% of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out, specifically NEM, Dash, IOTA, and Cardano. They have been replaced by EOS, Binance Coin, Tether, and BTCSV.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The crypto market gave up its October gains and then some as $50B was shed in November. The overall market cap now back to the $198B mark, last seen in May 2019. Since January 2018, the total market cap is down -66%.

Bitcoin dominance:

Bitcoin dominance decreased slightly in November. For context, the range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2018 has been quite wide: a high of 70% in September 2019 and a low of 33% in February 2018.

Overall return on investment from January 1st, 2018:

The 2018 Top Ten Portfolio lost -$42 in November. If I cashed out today, my $1000 initial investment would return $150, down -85%.
The 2019 Top Ten Experiment is doing better. If I cashed that experiment out today, that $1,000 initial investment would return $1,100, a +10% gain. Full November report to come. In the meantime, here's the October update.
Taken together, here's the bottom bottom line: after a $2000 investment in both the 2018 and the 2019 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my portfolios would be worth $1,250.
That's down -37.5%.

Implications/Observations:

As always, the experiment's focus of solely holding the Top Ten Cryptos continues to be a losing approach. While the overall market is down -%66 from January 2018, the cryptos that began 2018 in the Top Ten are down -85% over the same period. This of course implies that I would have done a bit better if I'd picked a different group of cryptos.
At no point in this experiment has this investment strategy been successful: the initial 2018 Top Ten have under-performed each of the twenty-three months compared to the market overall.
I'm also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The S&P 500 is now up +17.5% since the beginning of 2018. My initial $1k investment into crypto would have yielded about +$175 had it been redirected to the S&P.

Conclusion:

After a bounce in October, it seems like we're back to our previously scheduled programming of downward movement. One month to go in 2019, let's see what happens.
A note: although I'm planning on continuing to track both the 2018 and 2019 Top Ten Cryptos next year, I'm undecided on whether or not to repeat the experiment yet again in 2020. Please do leave your suggestions and ideas in the comments below.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel project where I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of a new set of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st 2019.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (Oct. 2019 Update)

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (Oct. 2019 Update)
[ EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptocurrencies for Two Years (2018 & 2019) - Month Twenty-Two - Down -81%]
Full blog post with all the tables
tl;dr - Thanks to some good news out of China, October produced gains which snapped a three month losing streak. $1000 investment in Top Ten cryptos on January 1st, 2018 is now worth about $192. Bitcoin maintains overall leader position followed by Litecoin then Ethereum. Take the two Top Ten experiments together, I'm down -21%.
**NOTE** - I usually like to release the two posts a day apart, but I'll be spacing out the Top Ten 2018 and the Top Ten 2019 reports a bit more as readers have mentioned they've been removed by the mods (no offence taken, mods - the content is quite similar, I assume the posts are being removed because they're seen as identical. **END NOTE**

The Experiment:

Instead of hypothetically tracking cryptos, I made an actual $1000 investment, $100 in each of the Top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap as of the 1st of January 2018. Think of it as a lazy man's Index Fund (no weighting or rebalancing), less technical, more fun (for me at least), and hopefully still a proxy for the market as a whole - or at the very least an interesting snapshot of the 2018/2019 crypto space. I’m trying to keep it simple and accessible for beginners and those looking to get into crypto but maybe not quite ready to jump in yet.
I have also started a parallel project: on January 1st, 2019, I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) into the new Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st 2019. Spoiler alert: the 2019 Experiment makes for much happier reading.

The Rules:

Buy $100 of each the Top 10 cryptocurrencies on January 1st, 2018. Run the experiment two years. Hold only. No selling. No trading. Report monthly. Compare loosely to the 2019 Top Ten Experiment.

Month Twenty-Two - Down 81%

Thanks to some positive news out of China, October decisively broke a three month losing streak for the 2018 Top Ten portfolio. All cryptos in the experiment were either up or flat this month, a welcome change from summer's downward trend.

Ranking and October Winners and Losers

Although the market as a whole gained, a few of our 2018 Top Ten coins had trouble keeping up. IOTA and NEM each dropped two places to #18 and #27, respectively. Dash slid three slots, and now teeters on the edge of the Top Twenty. On the positive side Bitcoin Cash gained one position in the rankings, climbing to the four spot.
October Winners - Bitcoin Cash rebounded nicely after a dismal September finishing +29% up on the month. Ripple and Stellar had solid months as well, ending October at +16% and +14% respectively.
October Losers - Only IOTA lost value this month, down -1%. Along with NEM and Dash, the three were basically flat in October.
For those keeping score, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and loses during the first 22 months of this experiment. Most monthly wins (5): Bitcoin. Most monthly loses (5): Stellar. All cryptos have at least one monthly win. The only two coins never to lose a month? Bitcoin and Dash.

Overall update – Bitcoin far ahead of peers. Four worst performers down over -90% each, NEM still in basement.

Bitcoin is still miles ahead of the pack maintaining a 40+ percentage point lead over second place Litecoin and third place Ethereum. This isn't even the widest lead Bitcoin has held since I started the experiment nearly two years ago: August 2019's +50% lead is still the record.
Looking through my past reports, poor NEM has been stuck in the basement all year. Since January 2019 is has been the experiment's worst overall performer. NEM is currently down -96% followed by Cardano, Dash, and IOTA all down over -90% since January 1st, 2018. My initial $100 investment in NEM is worth just $4.49.
40% of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out, specifically NEM, Dash, IOTA, and Cardano. They have been replaced by EOS, Binance Coin, Tether, and BTCSV.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

Breaking a three month losing streak, crypto ended October in positive territory, up about +$26B by month's end. The overall market cap is sitting around the $248B mark, rebounding to September 2019 levels. Since January 2018, the total market cap is down -57%.
If you're looking for a silver lining, followers of my 2019 Top Ten Experiment will note that there has been an increase of +74% in total crypto market cap since the beginning 2019.

Bitcoin dominance:

Bitcoin dominance ticked down slightly in October, but no major shift from last month. For context, the range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2018 has been quite wide: a high of 70% in September 2019 and a low of 33% in February 2018.

Overall return on investment from January 1st, 2018:

After three straight months of loses, the portfolio gained a modest $17 in October. If I cashed out today, my $1000 initial investment would return $192, down nearly -81%.
The 2019 Top Ten Experiment is doing a bit better. If I cashed that experiment out today, that $1,000 initial investment would return $1,387, a +39% gain. Full October report to come.
Taken together, here's the bottom bottom line: after a $2000 investment in both the 2018 and the 2019 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my portfolios would be worth $1,579.
That's down about -21%.

Implications/Observations:

As always, the experiment's focus of solely holding the Top Ten Cryptos continues to be a losing approach. While the overall market is down -%57 from January 2018, the cryptos that began 2018 in the Top Ten are down -81% over the same period.
At no point in this experiment has this investment strategy been successful: the initial 2018 Top Ten have under-performed each of the twenty-two months compared to the market overall.
I'm also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The S&P 500 is now up +15.2% since the beginning of 2018. My initial $1k investment into crypto would have yielded about +$152 had it been redirected to the S&P.

Conclusion:

Thanks to the news out of China, October ended up breaking the streak of three consecutive months of downward movement for crypto. Again, this shows that unpredictability is the norm in crypto: we seemed on track to continue the downward trend until the end of the year. With two months left in the year, will the October gains hold?
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel project where I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of a new set of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st 2019.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Zombie Apocalypse Edition - I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (March 2020 Update)

Zombie Apocalypse Edition - I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (March 2020 Update)
2018 \"Index Fund\" EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptocurrencies of 2018 - Mar 2020/Month Twenty-Seven Update - Down 87%
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
tl;dr - take care of yourselves, your families, and your communities. Keep up the social distancing, bend the curve, wash your hands. Be careful out there. And - a truly insane month. Despite the market meltdown, crypto has under-performed the market since January 2018 by quite a bit. But if you measure from Jan 2019 or Jan 2020 it's a different story.

Month Twenty-Seven – Down 87%

Welcome to the special COVID/Zombie Apocalypse version of the update. An all red month, but, meh, this is cypto, we’re used to it.

Ranking and March Winners and Losers

For such a crazy month, there wasn’t much movement with this group. For the second month in a row, Cardano fell two positions and Bitcoin Cash slipped one slot. NEM was the only crypto to climb, up one position in March. Always got to take the opportunity to report something positive about NEM!
The overall drop out rate is still at 50% mark (meaning half of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out). NEM, Dash, IOTA, Cardano, and Stellar have been replaced by EOS, Binance Coin, Tezos, Tether, and BSV.
March WinnersBitcoin squeaked out a victory in March, although BTC was basically in a three way tie this month with XRP and Dash. All were down -23%.
March Losers – In an all red month, ETH and Cardano did especially poorly, down -38% and -33% respectively.
Below is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and losses in the first 27 months of the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment. Most monthly wins (7): Bitcoin. Most monthly losses (5): Stellar. All cryptos have at least one monthly win and Bitcoin now stands alone as the only crypto that hasn’t lost a month (although it came close in January 2020), when it gained “only” +31%).

Overall update – BTC far ahead, ETH and LTC virtually tied for second place, IOTA and NEM virtually tied for last place.

Although down -50% from January 2018, Bitcoin is still well ahead of the field. Ethereum and Litecoin are almost tied for second place, down -81% and -82% respectively.
While NEM technically remains in the basement, IOTA is knocking at the door. Both are down -96%, and IOTA is now only a few cents off in total return.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The overall crypto market lost about $60B in March 2020 and is now down -68% from January 2018.

Bitcoin dominance:

Bitcoin dominance bounced up about +1.5% in March, something we’ve seen time and time again over the course of the experiment when the market bleeds. For context, the range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2018 has been quite wide: a high of 70% in September 2019 and a low of 33% in February 2018.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2018:

The 2018 Top Ten Portfolio lost about $53 bucks in March 2020. If I cashed out today, my $1000 initial investment would return about $133, down -87% from January 2018. This isn’t quite the low point for the 2018 Top Ten (the portfolio was down -88% in January 2019) but pretty close.
See, here’s the ROI over the life of the experiment, month by month:
A sea of red. The closest the 2018 Top Ten group has come to breaking even was after the very first month, when the portfolio was down “only” -20%. March 2020 is now the eighth consecutive time the portfolio has ended the month down at least -80%.
The 2019 and 2020 Top Ten Experiments are still in positive territory, but not by much:
Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my portfolios are worth $2,267‬.
After finally, at sweet long last, ending the first few months of 2020 in positive territory for the combined portfolios (January up +13% and February up +6%), that’s down about -24% total. Thanks coronavirus.
Alright, but it’s the end of the world as we know it, everything’s tanking. How does this compare to traditional markets?

Comparison to S&P 500:

I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. March 2020 was not a great month for the S&P: it lost over -20% of its value this month and is currently at the lowest point since the experiment began in January 2018: -8% since the start of 2018. The initial $1k investment into crypto would have lost me about -$80 had it been redirected to the S&P.
Taking the same drop-$1,000-per-year-on-January-1st approach with the S&P 500 that I’ve been documenting through the Top Ten Crypto Experiments would yield the following:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: -$80
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: -$10
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: -$230
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $2,680.
That’s down about -11% compared to -24% with the Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios.
That’s a 13% difference. Last month the gap was only 1%.

Implications/Observations:

The experiment’s focus of solely holding the Top Ten Cryptos has never been a winning approach when compared to the overall market. The total market cap is down -68% from January 2018 compared to the -87% for the cryptos that began 2018 in the Top Ten. This of course implies that I would have done a bit better if I’d picked different cryptos.
At no point in this experiment has this investment strategy been successful: the initial 2018 Top Ten have under-performed each of the twenty-seven months compared to the market overall.
There are a few examples of this approach outperforming the overall market in the parallel 2019 Top Ten Crypto Experiment, but these cases are few and far between. In contrast, each of the first three months of the 2020 Experiment show that focusing on the Top Ten beats the overall market.

Conclusion:

With COVID affecting the entire globe and no end in sight, the next few months will be tough. We should have a better idea whether crypto is seen as a gold-like safe haven during tough times, as some have suggested.
Final word: take care of yourselves, your families, and your communities. Keep up the social distancing, bend the curve, wash your hands. Be careful out there.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel projects where I repeat the experiment twice, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of two new sets of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st, 2019 then again on January 1st, 2020.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2019 (Nov. 2019 Update)

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2019 (Nov. 2019 Update)
EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptocurrencies of 2019 - Month Eleven - UP 10%
Full blog post with all the tables
**NOTE** - I'm on the fence whether or not to repeat the experiment yet again in 2020 with the new Top Ten. The problem is that there's not been a lot of movement, so not super interesting tracking the same coins at similar prices. I have some other ideas, but very open to suggestions: if you have any good ideas, please share them in the comments below. **END NOTE**
tl;dr - After a breather in October, crypto is back to the summer's downward trajectory. Every 2019 Top Ten crypto 2019 was down in November except of course Tether. Bitcoin Cash and Ripple both struggled in November, down -27% and -25% respectively. Overall, BTC and Litecoin are still far ahead of their peers, up +93% and +49% respectively in 2019, while Stellar continues to be a drag on the overall return of portfolio, down -50% in 2019.

The Experiment:

Instead of hypothetically tracking cryptos, I made an actual $1000 investment, $100 in each of the Top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap as of the 1st of January 2018. I then repeated the experiment on the 1st of January 2019. Think of it as a lazy man's Index Fund (no weighting or rebalancing), less technical, more fun (for me at least), and hopefully still a proxy for the market as a whole - or at the very least an interesting snapshot of the 2019 crypto space. I am trying to keep this project simple and accessible for beginners and those looking to get into crypto but maybe not quite ready to jump in yet. I try not to take sides or analyze, but rather report and document in a detached manner letting the numbers speak for themselves.

The Rules:

Buy $100 of each the Top 10 cryptocurrencies on January 1st, 2019. Hold only. No selling. No trading. Report monthly. Compare loosely to the 2018 Top Ten Experiment.

Month Ten - Up 10%

November was the complete opposite of October: 100% of the Top Ten cryptos were in the green last month, 100% are in the red this month (except Tether of course, which is always flat). When Tether is the best performer, it signals a rough month for the 2019 Top Ten portfolio.
Overall, the 2019 Top Ten portfolio is up +10% on the year. For context, this same group of cryptos was up +114% at the peak in May 2019. Additionally, the portfolio has fallen well behind the stock market as measured by the S&P 500 (see below).

Ranking and November Winners and Losers

Not much movement this month. Bitcoin Cash slipped back into the #5 slot. EOS and Tether both advanced a position (to#7 and #4, respectively) and that's it.
Big picture, in the constantly shifting crypto landscape, it's a bit of surprise that nearly all of the coins that started in the Top Ten on January 1st, 2019 are still there (except Tron, which stands alone as a Top Ten dropout, replaced by Binance Coin). This is certainly different from the 2018 Top Ten Experiment where coins have fallen and fallen hard.
November Winners - Winner, singular: Tether. A distant second is Stellar, down -17% in November.
November Losers - Bitcoin Cash followed by Ripple, down -27% and -25% respectively.
For those keeping score, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and loses during the first eleven months of this experiment: Tether has pulled ahead of Bitcoin and BTCSV. Bitcoin SV has the most monthly losses, finishing last in four out of the first eleven months of 2019.

Overall update – Bitcoin maintains sizable lead over second place Litecoin. All cryptos in positive territory except Stellar, Ripple, and Tron.

BTC and Litecoin are still far ahead of their peers, up +93% and +49% respectively in 2019. My initial $100 investment in Bitcoin is now worth $197.
All Top Ten cryptos are still either flat or in positive territory except Stellar, Ripple and Tron. Stellar continues to be a drag on the overall return of the 2019 Top Ten portfolio, down -50% in 2019. Ripple and Tron follow down about -40% and about -20% respectively.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The crypto market gave up its October gains and then some as $50B was shed in November. The overall market cap now back to the $198B mark, last seen in May 2019.
A bit of perspective: it still has been a very strong year for crypto overall. The entire market cap is up +56% since the beginning of 2019.

Bitcoin dominance:

Bitcoin dominance decreased slightly in November. The range this year has gone from a high of 70% in September 2019 to a low of 50% in March 2019.

Overall return on investment from January 1st, 2019:

If I cashed out the 2019 Top Ten portfolio today, my $1,000 initial investment would return $1,100, a +10% gain.
I'm down significantly in my 2018 Top Ten Experiment. If I cashed that group out today, the $1000 initial investment would return about $150, down nearly -85%.
Taken together, here's the bottom bottom line: after a $2000 investment in both the 2018 and the 2019 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my portfolios would be worth $1,250.
That's down -37.5%.

Implications/Observations:

With the crypto market as a whole up +56% on the year, how have the 2019 Top Ten cryptos performed? Up a much lower +10%. As a reminder, in May 2019, the gains from the 2019 Top Ten and the entire market cap were both exactly the same: +114%. The last few months have seen that gap widen: for six straight months, focusing only on the Top Ten has been a losing strategy. This of course implies that I would have done a bit better if I'd picked a different group of cryptos.
This is reminiscent of last year as at no point in the Top Ten 2018 Experiment did the Top Ten strategy outperform the overall market.
I'm also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The S&P 500 is up +24% since the beginning of 2019. This is now more than double the +10% my 2019 Top Ten portfolio is returning. Quite a turnaround from May of this year, when the Top Ten portfolio was up +114% compared to +10% for the S&P.
So, the initial $1k investment I put into crypto would now be worth $1240 had it been redirected to the S&P 500.

Conclusion:

After a reprieve in October, crypto has resumed the slide it started in the summer. Until recently, it looked like the 2019 Top Ten would easily outperform the market on the year, but that outcome is definitely in doubt now. More telling, with only one month left in 2019, I'm no longer confident that the portfolio will at least break even: as of the end of November, the 2019 Top Ten portfolio only holds a slim +10% return, gains that can easily evaporate before the new year.
If you're just finding this experiment now, here's the backstory: On the 1st of January, 2018, I bought $100 each of the Top Ten cryptos at the time for a total investment of $1000 to see how they would perform over the year. I tracked the experiment and reported each month. The result? I ended 2018 down -85%, my $1000 worth only $150.
After last year's experiment ended, I decided to do two things:
  1. Extend the Top Ten 2018 Crypto project one more year. The experiment is now in its 23rd month. You can check out the latest update here.
  2. What you're reading now is the 11th report of a parallel project: this year I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of the new Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st, 2019.
Thanks for reading and the support for the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports.
Again: although I'm planning on continuing to track both the 2018 and 2019 Top Ten Cryptos next year, I'm undecided on whether or not to repeat the experiment yet again in 2020. Please do leave your suggestions and ideas in the comments below.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

What if you bought and held $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018? (June 2019 Update)

What if you bought and held $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018? (June 2019 Update)

EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptocurrencies for Two Years (2018 & 2019) - Month Eighteen - Down 71%
Full blog post
tl;dr - June marked the fifth positive month in a row. Still down -71% over life of experiment. Bitcoin takes commanding overall lead and wins the month as well.

The Experiment:

Instead of hypothetically tracking cryptos, I made an actual $1000 investment, $100 in each of the Top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap as of the 1st of January 2018. Think of it as a lazy man's Index Fund (no weighting or rebalancing), less technical, more fun (for me at least), and hopefully still a proxy for the market as a whole - or at the very least an interesting snapshot of the 2018/2019 crypto space. I’m trying to keep it simple and accessible for beginners and those looking to get into crypto but maybe not quite ready to jump in yet.
I have also started a parallel project: on January 1st, 2019, I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) into the new Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st 2019. Spoiler alert: it's a night and day difference between the two experiments.

The Rules:

Buy $100 of each the Top 10 cryptocurrencies on January 1st, 2018. Run the experiment two years. Hold only. No selling. No trading. Report monthly.

Month Eighteen - Down 71%

https://preview.redd.it/ssk1c0h8hp731.png?width=898&format=png&auto=webp&s=d251fcd69dca43a136c1f203f557cc1ee243842a
Despite steady growth all month, the end of June ended on a downward trend. The final month-end numbers are still up from last month, but just barely, despite the excitement of Bitcoin briefly approaching $14,000. In fairness, May 2019 was an incredibly strong month in crypto - very hard to beat. The experiment has now seen five straight months of gains.

Ranking

https://preview.redd.it/0hhyglmahp731.png?width=264&format=png&auto=webp&s=a4cfeb6aad97b748a1cf30cc745c923a25f26143
Lots of movement in June, most of it downward. IOTA slipped three places from #15 to #18, Stellar fell two spots and out of the Top Ten to #12, and both NEM and Dash dropped a slot to #21 and #15 respectively.
On the positive side, Cardano re-entered the Top Ten, moving two places from #12 to #10. And the most significant move this month was probably Litecoin switching places with Bitcoin Cash. Litecoin now sits at #4, Bitcoin Cash at #5.
NEM, Dash, IOTA, and Stellar are Top Ten dropouts - they have been replaced by EOS, Binance Coin, Tether, and BTCSV.
June Winners - Bitcoin dominated the headlines for good reason - even after a significant correction at the end of the month, it is still up 30% in June. ETH finished second, up 13%, followed by Litecoin, up 10%.
June Losers - For the third month in a row Stellar was the worst performer, down -20% followed by IOTA, down -13% in June.
For those keeping score, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and loses during the first 18 months of this experiment. Most monthly wins (3): Litecoin and Bitcoin. Most monthly loses (5): Stellar.
https://preview.redd.it/2yzr97uchp731.png?width=258&format=png&auto=webp&s=a15db9a5a14f0261ed6efb3ff0f43ddf273305a6

Overall update – Bitcoin increases lead and approaches break-even point. NEM and IOTA still at the bottom.

Bitcoin followed up its stellar May with a very strong June. It is now only down -16% since January 2018 and is approaching the break-even point. Litecoin is a very distant second at -43% since the experiment began.
NEM is still the worst overall performer (down -90%) followed by IOTA which is down -88% and ADA down -87%. My initial $100 investment in NEM is worth just $10.03.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

https://preview.redd.it/mj9h8bmehp731.png?width=348&format=png&auto=webp&s=f0075fd79f7ca1950deee8d272969855fb5763bb
The total crypto market cap increased about $50B in June, a significant gain, but only half of what it added in May. Overall, the experiment has crossed the -50% threshold and is down "only" -44% at the moment, a level we haven't seen since June 2018.

Bitcoin dominance:

https://preview.redd.it/vj7tea2ghp731.png?width=323&format=png&auto=webp&s=d58b4eb753ea975ea53a7a0dd534bd1838886de6
Bitcoin dominance now stands at 61.4%, easily the highest point so far in the experiment.

Overall return on investment from January 1st, 2018:

https://preview.redd.it/52x70aohhp731.png?width=224&format=png&auto=webp&s=75868f1b0ec54c5a269fb7f52cba196d00ae97b1
My Top Ten of 2018 portfolio increased about $15 in total value this month. I can now mark five months in a row with increasing total value, a new record in the experiment.
If I cashed out today, my $1000 initial investment would return about $295, down -71%.

Implications/Observations:

Although BTC is up +30% and the overall market added $50B, my Top Ten experiment cryptos only gained about +1.5%. It's fair to say that Bitcoin is leading the charge and that the altcoins haven't had their day yet.
Although gains in June were modest, this is now the fifth positive month in a row for the 2018 Top Ten, unprecedented thus far in the experiment.
Once again this month marks a record high in Bitcoin dominance, the highest since the experiment started in January 2018, over 61%.
Bitcoin continues to increase its overall lead. After eighteen months, it is now 25% ahead of second place Litecoin in terms of return on initial investment.
The experiment's focus of solely holding the Top Ten again looks like an especially poor strategy this month. While the overall market is down -44% from January 2018, the cryptos that began 2018 in the Top Ten are down -71% over the same period of time. That's over a 25% difference, is the widest gap of the experiment so far, and is significantly more than last month's record 20% difference.
At no point has this investment strategy worked: the initial 2018 Top Ten have under-performed every single month compared to the market overall.
I'm also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The S&P 500 is now up +10% since the beginning of 2018. My initial $1k investment into crypto would have yielded about +$100 had it been redirected to the S&P.
https://preview.redd.it/j2m6mcnjhp731.png?width=302&format=png&auto=webp&s=a879b108470a8b1dc8f6c4cf1ab4254467aad2b1

Conclusion:

Last month I ended my update wondering if Bitcoin would hit $10k, which it flew by. With still relatively little mainstream attention, is $15k attainable in the near term or are we back to moving sideways? How much longer can BTC sustain its momentum? And when its exhausted, will the alts see a bounce?
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel project where I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of the new Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st 2019.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (Feb 2020 Update)

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (Feb 2020 Update)

2018 \"Index Fund\" EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptocurrencies of 2018 - Feb 2020/Month Twenty-Six Update - Down 81%
Note: the snapshot was taken on the 1st of March, so does not include the current COVID craziness. Stay tuned for next month's updates to see the result of the current crypto nose dive and how it compares to the current stock market nose dive.
Stay safe, wash your hands, take care of each other.
See the full blog post with all the tables here.

Month Twenty-Six – Down 81%

After a strong start to 2020, February saw a bit of a pullback with nearly every 2018 Top Ten crypto ending in the red. Ethereum is the notable exception, gaining +21% for the month.

Ranking and February Winners and Losers

A mixed month in terms of movement for this group of cryptos. NEM and Stellar made positive moves while Cardano and IOTA, fell two and four positions, respectively. Dash gave up some of the ground it made in January when it jumped an unprecedented 10 slots, but this month it fell from #16 back to #20.
For overall drop out rate, we’re back at the 50% mark: half of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out, specifically NEM, Dash, IOTA, Cardano, and Stellar. They have been replaced by EOS, Binance Coin, Tezos, Tether, and BSV.
February WinnersEthereum easily outperformed the field this month with a +21% gain. NEM finished in second place, up +4%.
February Losers – All the other cryptos ended the month in the red. IOTA picks up the L this month, losing -28% of its value followed closely by Dash which finished down -27%.
For nerds): here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and losses in the first 26 months of the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment. Most monthly wins (6): Bitcoin. Most monthly losses (5): Stellar. All cryptos have at least one monthly win and Bitcoin now stands alone as the only crypto that hasn’t lost a month (although it came close in January 2020), when it gained “only” +31%).

Overall update – BTC far ahead, ETH takes second place from LTC, IOTA and NEM worst performing

No news here: Bitcoin is still well ahead of the field. Although down -35% since the beginning of 2018, BTC is still returning roughly double of the next crypto down, Ethereum – which, thanks to a strong February, has overtaken Litecoin for second place.
While NEM remains at the bottom, IOTA is dropping quickly. They are down -95% and -94% respectively.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The overall crypto market lost about $12B in February 2020, a non-event in the crypto world. Since January 2018, the total market cap is down about -57%.

Bitcoin dominance:

Bitcoin dominance ticked down another two points to 64% in February 2020. The last time BitDom was this low was back in July 2019. The range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2018 has been quite wide: a high of 70% in September 2019 and a low of 33% in February 2018.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2018:

The 2018 Top Ten Portfolio lost about $16 bucks in February 2020. If I cashed out today, my $1000 initial investment would return about $186, down -81% from January 2018.
Here’s a look at the ROI over the life of the experiment, month by month:
As you can see, nothing but red. The closest the 2018 Top Ten group has come to breaking even was after the very first month, when the portfolio was down -20%. It has been at the at least -80% loss level for the past seven months in a row.
The 2019 Top Ten Experiment and the just launched 2020 Top Ten Experiment are both doing much better:
Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my portfolios are worth $‭3,170‬.
That’s up about +5.6%.

Implications/Observations:

As always, the experiment’s focus of solely holding the Top Ten Cryptos continues to be a losing approach. While the overall market is down -57% from January 2018, the cryptos that began 2018 in the Top Ten are down -81% over the same period. This of course implies that I would have done a bit better if I’d picked different cryptos.
At no point in this experiment has this investment strategy been successful: the initial 2018 Top Ten have under-performed each of the twenty-six months compared to the market overall.
There are a few examples, however, of this approach outperforming the overall market in the parallel 2019 Top Ten Crypto Experiment. And the first two months of the 2020 Experiment show that focusing on the Top Ten is a winning strategy.
I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. After a rough coronavirus fueled week, the S&P 500 has lost a lot of ground. It is currently up only +11% since the beginning of 2018. The initial $1k investment into crypto would have yielded about +$110 had it been redirected to the S&P.
Taking the same drop-$1,000-per-year-on-January-1st approach with the S&P 500 that I’ve been documenting through the Top Ten Crypto Experiments would yield the following:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$110
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$180
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: -$90
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,200.
That’s up about +6.7% compared to +5.6% with the Top Ten Crypto Experiments.
That’s getting pretty close now, eh? While this month’s update/snapshot is greatly influenced by the coronavirus stock market correction, a difference of only 1% is definitely worth noting.

Conclusion:

Not a great month for crypto, but not a horrible one, especially if you compare to the free fall in the stock market. Depending on how the coronavirus influences both traditional and crypto markets, we could be in for an interesting few months.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel projects where I repeat the experiment twice, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of two new sets of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st, 2019 then again on January 1st, 2020.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Repaso del semestre de BetFury: ¡los logros de 6 meses!

Repaso del semestre de BetFury: ¡los logros de 6 meses!

https://preview.redd.it/ii0gdnv7d6x41.png?width=1400&format=png&auto=webp&s=f5f74857d0e2f9a2764b3bc9c19bba0c5735301c
¿Puedes imaginar que ya han pasado seis meses desde el lanzamiento de la plataforma BetFury? A pesar de tan corto período, hemos logrado mucho y, por supuesto, no vamos a detener el flujo. Es hora de hablar de nuestras victorias y anunciar nuestros planes inmediatos.
Cómo empezó todo
BetFury es una plataforma de i-Gaming basada en la cadena de bloques TRON que combina las prácticas de juego tradicionales con características digitales de juego únicas para los usuarios. Utiliza todas las ventajas del registro rápido y los depósitos para jugar con el mismo placer desde tu teléfono, ordenador o tableta!

Muchos usuarios se familiarizaron con la plataforma antes del lanzamiento cuando celebramos el evento de registro para 1 000 000 TRX. Empezamos como una plataforma de TRON con ventajas de 0.1 TRX min de apuesta, Cashback hasta el 25%, programa de rango VIP y 4 juegos internos: Dados, Crash, Circle, Plinko.
Desde los primeros días, reclutamos el apoyo de los mejores promotores y jugadores! También DApps.Buzz, TokenPocket, BestBitcoinCasino, Crypto Gambling News escribieron sobre nosotros. Según el ranking de Dapp.com, ¡BetFury se ha convertido en el proyecto con la tasa de crecimiento más rápida en 2019!

https://preview.redd.it/f93vuiyzf6x41.png?width=1400&format=png&auto=webp&s=1709b7845eeb91ef0560ccd7435b00b8148ac2a2
Métricas clave (6 meses)
Usuarios
Cada día nuestro sitio es visitado por 1200 usuarios. El número máximo de visitantes de la plataforma por día fue de ~ 7000. (los datos de dapp.review muestran ~500 usuarios, casi la mitad no fue rastreada debido al sistema de apuestas fuera de la cadena de BetFury).

Total de cuentas de usuarios ~50К
El volumen total de las 24 horas de hoy es de 380.000 dólares.

La piscina de dividendos...
El tema más popular desde el lanzamiento de la plataforma es el fondo común de dividendos.

Cada 24 horas, el fondo de dividendos libera el 3% del total de los beneficios de la plataforma en cada moneda, y la cantidad es compartida entre todos los usuarios que tienen fichas BFG. El modelo de distribución de beneficios en cantidad de 3% permite acumular constantemente el pool y hacer pagos estables.

El 3 de noviembre (después del comienzo) el fondo de dividendos de BetFury fue de más de 500.000 TRX! El indicador máximo del pool de dividendos fue de 56 000 000 TRX en diciembre.

El pool de dividendos sólo se ha estabilizado, pero también conectamos otras monedas para el juego y los pagos de divisa - USDT, BTT, BTC (div pool pronto). Ahora nuestros montos de dividendos son 13 586 729.91 TRX, 11 343.38 USDT y 27 107 533.44 BTT.

https://preview.redd.it/lc1ncpj3g6x41.png?width=1400&format=png&auto=webp&s=234f05c0ca4684e9fce623f564b8e03ad71e97aa
Ya se han pagado dividendos por valor de 2.000.000 de dólares.
durante 6 meses!

BFG token
La ficha de BetFury (BFG) es una ficha de utilidad para la participación en los beneficios y la generación de ingresos. Para cualquier apuesta, las fichas de BFG se añaden automáticamente a tu saldo. ¡Cuantos más BFG, más ingresos por dividendos!

¿Recuerdas cómo comenzó la extracción de los bonos BFG? Se inició a partir de 20 TRX por 1 BFG. Por cada 50 000 000 BFG el precio aumentaba en 1 TRX (para juegos internos) y 0,5 TRX (para tragamonedas).
⛏ La minería está disponible para USDT, BTT, BTC y se calcula sobre la tasa de Binance en el tiempo real de la apuesta.
El precio actual de la minería es de 51 TRX/1 BFG para los juegos In-House.

El precio actual de extracción de las tragaperras es de 13 TRX/1 BFG.
El costo promedio de la minería (juegos internos) es de 0.76 TRX/1 BFG.
El costo promedio de la minería (Tragamonedas) es de 0.52 TRX/1 BFG.

Total congelado: 1 110 759 009 BFG
Totalmente minado: 1 212 722 666 BFG

BetFury tiene su propio mecanismo de quema de fichas llamado Subasta, donde los jugadores hacen ofertas en BFG para ganar TRX. Además, el equipo de BetFury organiza una quema planificada de fichas de BFG para aumentar el valor de la ficha nativa de BFG.

Total quemados: 100 858 233 BFG

Reembolso de efectivo
Nos convertimos en la primera plataforma en el espacio de i-Gaming en ofrecer Cashback. BetFury ofrece un sistema de cashback para todos los usuarios. El porcentaje de cashback depende del rango en la plataforma y oscila entre el 2% y el 25%. También cuando el tiempo de cuarentena ha comenzado en todo el mundo, el equipo de la plataforma apoyó a los usuarios con 2X Cashback! Muchos usuarios aprovecharon esta oportunidad jugando y recibiendo muchas monedas de vuelta.

Cashback pagó por todo el tiempo - 44.1M TRX ($300K).
Actualmente сashback se puede obtener dos veces por semana: el lunes y el jueves. Retirar la devolución de dinero manualmente al balance del juego.

Jackpots
Algunos juegos internos tienen sus reglas para ganar el premio gordo, lo que hace que jugar sea emocionante. Las reglas no son difíciles, lee este artículo y asegúrate:

https://preview.redd.it/9mamzpopi6x41.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d945fd6b76e93562143c30d8177658a2b2223da1
Características de los juegos
Juegos internos
Hemos desarrollado juegos de Hi-Lo, Keno, Escaleras, Minas. 💸Playing está disponible para todo el mundo, mientras que las apuestas mínimas son sólo 0,1 TRX, 0,01 USDT, 5 BTT, 0,000002 BTC. Además, hemos celebrado competiciones de Círculo, Keno, Minas, Escaleras en BetFury por más de 100 000 000 TRX de premios!

Daily Big Wins - es una rúbrica sobre la vertiginosa suerte y los grandes beneficios de nuestros jugadores, que juegan en casa.

Tragamonedas
Como se prometió, hemos conectado las tragaperras de los mejores proveedores: Spinmatic, Spinomenal, Playson, Booongo, Endorphina, Vivogaming, BetgamesTV, Pragmatic, Habanero, Mr. Slotty, Fugaso, 1x2Network,
GameArt.
Las tragaperras están ahora disponibles con TRX, BTT, BTC, USDT.

TRX sigue estando disponible para jugar en las tragaperras de todos los proveedores.

USDT está disponible para jugar en las tragamonedas de Booongo, Spinmatic, Spinomenal, Endorphina, Habanero

El BTT puede ser usado para jugar a las tragaperras de Booongo, Spinmatic, Spinomenal, Endorphina, Playson, Habanero

El BTC puede ser usado para hacer girar las ranuras de Booongo, Spinmatic, Spinomenal, Endorfina, Playson, Habanero.
Juegos de mesa, loterías y casino en vivo

https://preview.redd.it/upnh0frbk6x41.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=989bad1d9a9fd0d4822ae9d3a5240bb887f304fc
¡Con BetFury ya no se necesitan las loterías de papel! Proponemos 7 juegos de Spinomenal: Monster's scratch, Scratchy Bit, Super Mask y algunos más. Juegos de mesa: Ruleta y Blackjack de muchos tipos de Playson.
Estamos trabajando constantemente para añadir nuevos proveedores, nuevos juegos, nuevas monedas para el juego y oportunidades para un mejor pasatiempo de nuestros usuarios!
Eventos de BetFury:
EVENTO BETFURY 2.0 para 5.5555 BTC

https://preview.redd.it/tg54up32l6x41.png?width=1260&format=png&auto=webp&s=d2d526f5fb2df626da0c3b32ee17c930fb334211
¡BetFury 2.0 está en camino! Vamos a familiarizarnos con la plataforma actualizada paso a paso. Este pre-registro es una parte importante del futuro de la plataforma, que abre el telón del próximo evento. ¡Tienes una buena habilidad para ganar Bitcoins y usarlos en la plataforma actualizada!

Participe en el evento 👉https://betfury.io/bf2\_event

Constantemente ideamos varias campañas de bonos y concursos para nuestros usuarios. Desde el lanzamiento de la plataforma pública hubo ~50 campañas de retweet por un monto de más de 150.000 TRX. Además, hubo muchos lanzamientos aéreos en el chat de BetFury.

El día del giro de las tragaperras

Descubre las tragaperras BetFury, juega a tus juegos favoritos, comparte el resultado de las ganancias en Twitter. Escogeremos al azar 3 jugadores, que compartirán 1500 TRX + 15 000 BTT por igual. No te decimos qué día será. Así que estad atentos a las redes sociales de BetFury! Sólo 24 horas para que los usuarios participen en el concurso "Slots Turning Day".

Carrera de tragamonedas semanal

Juega a tus tragaperras favoritas y gana premios cada semana en la Carrera de Tragaperras. El premio es de 200,000 TRX por 50 lugares! ¡Gran oportunidad para jugar, ganar dinero en efectivo, extraer fichas y conseguir muchos premios! 🚀 Desde el comienzo de la competición, ya hemos celebrado 15 carreras. 3, 000, 000 TRX (~$48 000) es la cantidad total de ganancias.

Promoción del éxito de BetFury

¿Tiene una apuesta exitosa, buenos dividendos o devolución de dinero, ganancias por referencia o un nuevo rango? Muestra tu éxito en Twitter y podrás obtener un premio extra por ello.
10.000 TRX + 100.000 BTT se reparten entre aquellos que muestran éxito. Cada 14 días otros 100 ganadores son elegidos al azar.

https://preview.redd.it/a1x079aul6x41.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=74bd1131cd7c30b4a738368556d9f9c94981679c
Crecimiento de la comunidad

Las redes sociales tienen un poder increíble. Todos los betfurianos del mundo pueden comunicarse sin fronteras. Nuestra comunidad crece cada hora. Cómo nos alegramos por los primeros 1000 seguidores en Twitter.

Hoy tenemos más de 16K usuarios activos allí! No olvides que puedes participar en la campaña de Twitter para 0.2 BTC 👇 https://twitter.com/betfury_io

6,7K miembros del Canal Oficial de BetFury pueden ver todos los días las últimas noticias. Los miembros de 22K se enteran de todos los eventos comunicándose en el chat del Telegrama. Nuestro Instagram es seguido por más de 550 personas.
Las cuentas de Medium, Reddit, Steemit contienen todos los artículos sobre las últimas actualizaciones, el trabajo de la plataforma y mucha más información cognitiva e interesante.

Actualizaciones planeadas:
Desarrollo de Betfury 2.0
Desarrollo del proyecto secreto
Nuevo proveedor de tragamonedas

https://preview.redd.it/63krsbhrm6x41.png?width=1400&format=png&auto=webp&s=aac8d3bb95e29d9b58acd30bc4ab4121e5325809
Conclusión
En sólo 6 meses, BetFury logró crecer desde el inicio del juego hasta la gran plataforma con las mejores oportunidades. La plataforma es reconocible y conocida por todo el mundo de los juegos encriptados. Nuestro principal objetivo - ser el número uno en el espacio de los juegos en criptografía! Planeamos crear la mejor experiencia de juego para los usuarios, combinar el poder de las industrias del cripto y del i-gaming, para implementar un producto de calidad, asequible y comprensible para todos!
La revolucionaria actualización de BETFURY 2.0 impresionará al mundo del juego en criptografía! BetFury cambia para que sea más conveniente, ¡más atractivo! ¡Sigue apoyando a Betfury y forma parte de la familia del criptojuego de rápido crecimiento!
Link Website: https://betfury.io Link Telegram: http://t.me/betfury Link Twitter: https://twitter.com/betfury_io Link Telegram Channel: https://t.me/betfuryofficialchannel Link Medium: https://medium.com/betfury-io Link Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BetFury.io/ Link Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/betfury.io/ Link Steemit: https://steemit.com/@betfury-steem Link Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/useBetFury_io
submitted by blackcatcrypto365 to u/blackcatcrypto365 [link] [comments]

how to open Binance exchange to buy bitcoin&cryptocurrency ... #565 Binance 100k für DEX Tester, Bitcoin Erpressung mit ... Stake Bitcoin Casino - From 0.001 To 0.009 BTC Gameplay How to Transfer Crypto from Coinbase to Binance!  MOVE ... $600 Bitcoin Casino Slots Win At The Best Crypto Casino Playing Mega Ball From Evolution Gaming LIVE - Crypto Casino Games Binance Coin (BNB) from $1 to $10 to $1,000?! Bitcoin Slots - So many Bonus Spins ! Bitcoin's Vaccine Correction  Get Funds Off Binance ...

Binance Smart Chain – Introduction One of the most important news that appeared in the last month is the launch of the Binance Smart Chain. Same as Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain offers a lot of benefits for its users, such as: Cheap Transactions – According to Binance, the transactions can cost as low as 1 cent. After testing, you’ll see that most of the transactions cost a fraction of a ... Video Slot Machines; Tips and Tricks; Mobile Gaming ; Top 10 Slots of 2017; Top 10 Slots of 2018; Infographic: Rise of Bitcoin; Binance Now Allowing Bitcoin Purchase Using Credit Cards. Posted on February 3, 2019 February 1, 2019 by Aaron Decker. On January 31, Binance, which is the largest cryptocurrency exchange on the planet announced that users of the platform will now be able to buy ... A lucky winner at Bitcoin Games has struck a fortune by winning a huge jackpot and cashing out 29.65 BTC (~ $250,000). Binance Launches VISA Cards for European Customers. Ethereum (ETH) Looking Ready to Rally as Weekly Transfer Value Exceeds Bitcoin (BTC) Yield Farming token YFI up 10x in Just One Month. Cryptocurrency-related Scams are on the Rise, How to Stay Safe. Home / Betting / Best Bitcoin Slot Games to Win Free Cryptocurrency in 2020. Best Bitcoin Slot Games to Win Free Cryptocurrency in 2020. August ... WINk (ex-TRONbet) is a gaming platform allowing users to play, socialize, and stake across multiple blockchain ecosystems. However, its primary blockchain ecosystem has been centered around the Tron blockchain.; Through behavioral mining, an innovative token economy design, and other incentive mechanisms, WINk has built a full ecosystem dedicated to provide a quality gaming experience. Die Kryptowährung Bitcoin wird immer beliebter - und das geht auch an den Casino und Slot-Anbietern nicht vorbei. Wir zeigen die besten Bitcoin Slots Make Money on Bitcoin. Sign in; Register; Home; Videos Videos. Browse Categories ; New; Popular; Bitcoin Mining; Crypto Investing; Crypto Trading; Crypto Wallets × Close Sign in. Don't have an account yet? Register today! Register. Username/Email. Password. Login Forgot your password? × Close Create your account. Register with E-mail × Close Add Video. Suggest video; Upload video; GUNBOT ... Binance Retains Top Spot as CoinGecko Revamps Exchange Trust Metric Cryptocurrency market data aggregator CoinGecko has updated its trust metric for exchanges, with Binance keeping its top slot in ... Binance coin is a digital currency provided by the cryptocurrency exchange Binance. The coin has some similarities to Ether because it is based on the Ethereum blockchain. The BNB token fuels all operations on Binance. Binance deploys BNB to pay the fees levied by the exchange for using the service. These fees include trading fees, exchange fees, and listing fees. Additionally, BNB can also be ... TronBet arguably only comes second to Bitcoin when it comes to being one of the world most successful blockchain-powered products. However, the TronBet is setting some very ambitious goals with the major rebrand that is currently on the way. Their plan is to take the platform to a wider user-base as it leverages strategic partnerships with both Binance and BitTorrent. The latter was just ...

[index] [15035] [2726] [22012] [22822] [1764] [17661] [12909] [13012] [19210] [19636]

how to open Binance exchange to buy bitcoin&cryptocurrency ...

HIGH LIMIT FIRE LINK JACKPOTS! ★ ROUTE 66 SLOT MACHINE HANDPAY MORE THAN ONCE! #THEREITIS - Duration: 13:25. The Slot Museum - Slot Machine Videos 20,801 views. New 😀 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙠 𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙁𝙤𝙧 𝙒𝙖𝙩𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜! 🚩 Remember to subscribe and hit the bell "🔔" icon, so you don't miss your ... Stake Bitcoin Casino - From 0.001 To 0.009 BTC List of Best Bitcoin Gaming Sites https://www.bitcoingaminglist.com I am not a adviser of any kind. Online gaming/betting has risks that come with it ... I walk you through how to transfer crypto from Coinbase to Binance in a few, easy steps! If you are wondering how to move coins from coinbase to binance, or ... 🔴 $50,000 High LIMIT Huge LIVE STREAM Slot Play From LAS VEGAS - Up To $100 A Spins! The Power Of NG - Duration: 2:06:38. NG Slot 225,483 views how to open Binance exchange to buy bitcoin #cryptotradingexchange #binance # howtoopen Binance link: https://www.binancezh.pro/en/register?ref=XW91KRSO buyi... (BNB) is Binance Coin, the base cryptocurrency of the Binance Exchange. Binance is considered by many the best and fastest growing cryptocurrency exchange in the World. BNB Coins are used as a ... http://bitcoin-informant.de/2019/03/05/565-binance-100k-fuer-dex-tester-bitcoin-erpressung-mit-mail-betrug-rumaenien-will-sein-gold Hey Krypto Fans, willkomm... how to beat the slots every time,tricks to winning slot machines,how to win at slots every time,FREE Online Slot,slot,slots,crypto slot,bitcoin slot,bitcoin slots,casino win,casino slot,slot ...

#